The
Petitioner, Deon Lamont Cartmell, was convicted of second
degree murder for the killing of his wife and sentenced to
eighteen years. On direct appeal, his conviction and sentence
were affirmed. State v. Deon Lamont Cartmell, No.
M2012-01925-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 3056164, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. July 7, 2014), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Nov.
20, 2014). He then filed a timely petition for
post-conviction relief, followed by three amended petitions,
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial
misconduct, and cumulative error. Following a bifurcated
hearing, the post-conviction court found that the
Petitioner's claims were without merit, and we agree.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the post-conviction court
denying relief.

Alan
E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
John Everett Williams and Norma McGee Ogle, JJ., joined.

OPINION

ALAN
E. GLENN, JUDGE

FACTS

The
facts in this matter were summarized in the opinion of this
court on direct appeal:

This case relates to the March 16, 2010 shooting death of
Shari Monique Cartmell, the [Petitioner's] wife, at the
marital home. Nashville Fire Department firemen responded and
found the victim lying on the couch unresponsive, not
breathing, and without a pulse. She was transported to
Vanderbilt Hospital.

Metro Police Crime Scene Investigator Felicia Evans performed
a gunshot residue test on the [Petitioner]. At the scene,
Investigator Evans found blood transfer on the doorways
throughout the house, a nine-millimeter pistol and a paper
towel lying on an ottoman, and a cartridge casing beside the
ottoman. She said the [Petitioner] wore a dark-colored
"hoodie" and jeans and had blood on his clothes,
hands, and face.

Metro Police Officer Kenneth Wolfe photographed the crime
scene. He identified photographs of blood on the outside door
of the house, a large amount of blood on the sofa, blood on
the wall to the right of the front door, blood on the inside
of the front door and on the door handle, and bloody rags on
the floor and on the ottoman. He also found a handgun with
blood on it lying on the ottoman and a cartridge casing lying
on the floor beside it. He found a trauma plate inside the
house, which he said was part of a police-issued bulletproof
vest. He said chicken was in the oven and in the sink
defrosting. He said that a gun safe was in the master bedroom
closet and that handguns, a rifle, and a police-issued
shotgun were in the master bedroom.

When Metro Fire Department Captain Michael Sisk arrived at
the scene, the [Petitioner] told him that he was in the
kitchen when he heard the gun discharge. When the
[Petitioner] went with Metro Police Chaplain James Duke to
notify the victim's mother of the victim's death, the
[Petitioner] told Chaplain Duke that he and the victim were
at the house, that they were handling guns, and that she
wanted to "dry fire" the gun. The [Petitioner] said
that the victim was cooking dinner, that she put the gun down
to check the oven, and that he reloaded the gun and went to
the bedroom to put up another gun. He said he heard a shot
when he was in the bedroom and found the victim lying on the
floor when he returned. He told Chaplain Duke that he
attempted CPR but was unable to save the victim.

Metro Police Detective Charles Robinson testified that
although the call was for an accidental shooting, he
questioned whether the shooting was accidental after
observing the blood spatter and after hearing the
[Petitioner's] statement to the police. The [Petitioner]
first said the victim was in the kitchen when he reloaded the
weapon but then said she was standing by the couch. The
[Petitioner] had blood on his jeans, hands, and face. He was
wearing a gray hoodie jacket over a white shirt when the
police arrived but was not wearing the jacket at the time of
the shooting. Detective Robinson saw blood on the right side
of the white shirt, which concerned him because the
[Petitioner] stated that the victim was on his left when he
bent to get the AR-15 and heard the gun go off. Detective
Robinson requested a gunshot residue test be performed on the
[Petitioner] and asked him to go to the police station. The
[Petitioner] was cooperative, consented to a search of the
house, allowed the police to take his clothes and test his
hands for gunshot residue, and went to the police station
voluntarily. The [Petitioner] allowed Detective Robinson to
look at the text messages stored in his cell phone, and
Detective Robinson determined that some messages were from
Paige Merriweather. The text messages were read to the jury
with the date and time they were sent but were not
transcribed for the record.

On the day after the shooting, Detective Robinson interviewed
the [Petitioner] and recorded his statement, which was played
for the jury. When asked about the March 16, 2010 events, the
[Petitioner] first told the detective about the victim's
discharging a gun accidentally a couple months before the
shooting. He said that the victim was "messing
around" with the gun, that a bullet was in the chamber,
and that she fired it. He said the bullet went through the
mattress, the footboard of the bed, and the wall and hit his
"subwoofer system" before stopping. The
[Petitioner] described the day of the shooting and said that
he was reaching for his AR-15 and that the victim was on his
left when he heard a "bang" and felt the force of
the shot. He said he called 9-1-1, pressed a rag on the
wound, and began CPR.

In response to Detective Robinson's question about
whether the [Petitioner] and the victim were having marital
problems, the [Petitioner] stated, "No, man. It was
great." When asked if they argued about bills or had any
recent arguments, the [Petitioner] stated, "Well, no,
the only, the only problems we ever, would ever be financial.
. . ." He described his relationship with the
victim's family and said he had issues with her mother.
He discussed his texting another woman named Paige the
morning before the victim's death and said he met her
when he responded to her call to the police after she
witnessed a traffic accident. When asked again if there were
problems in his marriage, the [Petitioner] said, "No,
the last, the last time we got into an argument . . . would
have been the last time we turned the mortgage in. Once we
turned the mortgage in . . . it went back to normal." He
said, "But we, you know, were doing good. I mean . . .
it was all happy, man. It was . . . kissing in the morning,
hugs at night."

After reviewing bills and letters found in the
[Petitioner's] house, Detective Robinson discovered that
the couple was in poor financial condition. The [Petitioner]
told the police that the argument between him and the victim
that was recorded by the cameras at Skyline Medical Center on
March 11, 2010, concerned money and mortgage payments.
Detective Robinson reviewed the [Petitioner's] cell phone
records and interviewed Megan Prisco, Cherelle Bradford, and
Sabrina Silverman based on the high volume of telephone calls
and text messages exchanged between them and the
[Petitioner].

Skyline Medical Center surveillance camera recordings from
March 16, 2010, last showed the victim at the nurses'
station at 3:48 p.m. Cynthia D. Edge, the director of patient
registration, saw the victim on March 16 around 4:00 p.m. in
the main admission and registration area. The victim talked
until 4:15 or 4:20 p.m. and went to Christine Rogers's
office afterward. Ms. Rogers, the emergency room patient
access supervisor, said the victim left her office at 4:32
p.m. and was going home to get ready to go out with her
friend Stephanie. Steve Rogers, Ms. Rogers's husband, saw
the victim outside his wife's office on March 16 at 4:30
p.m. Detective Robinson made eleven trips from Skyline
Medical Center to the [Petitioner's] house using three
different routes, and the shortest trip was seven minutes.

Detective Robinson testified that the time taken to drive
between Skyline Medical Center and the [Petitioner's]
house was important to show how long the victim was home. He
said that the 9-1-1 call was received at 4:46 or 4:47 p.m.
and that witness statements showed that the victim left the
hospital around 4:30. He said that according to the
[Petitioner's] statement, he went "from being in the
bedroom shooting a gun to showing [the victim] how to
actually take it apart and reassemble a gun, cooking,
watching a movie, which was Training Day." Detective
Robinson said that he did not see how the [Petitioner] and
the victim could have accomplished everything the
[Petitioner] stated when the timeline showed that the victim
was only home about ten minutes before the [Petitioner]
called 9-1-1.

Ms. Rogers testified that the victim called her one night in
2009 about 9:00 p.m. and asked for a ride from a night club
because she was afraid to go home. She did not know why the
victim was afraid. She said the victim told her that she and
the [Petitioner] were in their apartment playing with a gun
and that the [Petitioner] shot through a doorframe into
another unit. She said the victim also told her that when she
and the [Petitioner] were arguing about her not feeding a pet
snake, the [Petitioner] discharged a gun through the bed and
out the bathroom window. Ms. Rogers heard the victim tell her
friends in the emergency room, though, that she discharged
the gun, not the [Petitioner]. Ms. Rogers told the police
that she thought the [Petitioner] and the victim were a
loving couple, that she did not believe the victim was in
danger, and that if the victim was in danger, the victim
would have told her.

Metro Police Field Training Officer Mackovis Peebles worked
with the [Petitioner] at the end of February 2010. When
Officer Peebles asked the [Petitioner] if he was married, the
[Petitioner] said that he was but that if he wanted to
"go out and see his ho's, " he would tell his
wife and play mind games with her. Officer Peebles told the
[Petitioner] that he should not do that to his wife because
it might be construed as verbal abuse, but the [Petitioner]
laughed and joked about it. Officer Peebles overheard a
heated cell phone conversation between the [Petitioner] and
the victim about bills.

Megan Prisco met the [Petitioner] at a gas station where she
worked. They traded telephone numbers in January or February
2010 and exchanged sexual text messages, although both were
married. The [Petitioner] visited Ms. Prisco when she worked
on the weekends. The [Petitioner] told her that he was
married to his high school sweetheart and that they had a
house together. He told her the victim wanted everything
"top of the line." Ms. Prisco, the [Petitioner],
and the victim went to the same high school, and the
[Petitioner] told Ms. Prisco that he wished he would have met
her first. Ms. Prisco ended the relationship on March 7,
2010, because the [Petitioner] drove by her house in a police
car after she asked him not to come to her house. She saw the
[Petitioner] once after ending the relationship when he came
to the gas station with another officer on March 12, 13, or
14, 2010. She said he looked stressed and told her that he
was having problems at home but that "things were going
to be taken care of not to worry about it."

Stephanie Lindblom was friends with the victim, worked with
her at Skyline Medical Center, and had known her about two
years. She said that on the Thursday before the shooting, the
[Petitioner] and the victim argued at the discharge desk in
the emergency room about a house payment and that the
[Petitioner] wanted money from the victim. She said the

[Petitioner] walked into the emergency room and stated that
he wanted the "God d--- money" and was tired of
playing the victim's "f games." She said the
victim was embarrassed and fearful. Ms. Lindlom left to
register patients during the argument and received an e-mail
from the victim that said, "Don't leave me up here
with this nut." After the incident, the victim told Ms.
Lindblom that if the [Petitioner] wanted a divorce,
"[I]t was his."

Ms. Lin[d]blom noticed the victim's wedding ring was
missing in the months before her death and said that the
victim was horrified that she lost the ring because she loved
it. Ms. Linblom heard the victim talk about accidentally
discharging a weapon at her house but said she did not
believe the victim because she would not "play
around" with guns and would tell the [Petitioner] to put
them away.

Antoya Brandon, the victim's sister, testified that the
victim and the [Petitioner] were married for three years. She
said the victim was familiar with weapons and had been to a
shooting range before marrying the [Petitioner]. She knew
about the victim's money problems and said the victim was
"always broke" and had to borrow money. She noticed
the victim's wedding ring was missing in the months
before her death. Ms. Brandon said that she visited the
[Petitioner] and the victim's house with her two-year-old
daughter, that she told the victim to ask the [Petitioner] to
remove a gun that was on the ottoman, and that the
[Petitioner] responded, "This is my f house and
everybody can get the f--- out."

Charlotte Barbour, the victim's mother, testified that
the victim's wedding ring was missing in the months
before her death. She said that around Christmas 2009, she
spoke with the victim about having children and that the
victim told her she could not have children with the
[Petitioner] because he told her that if she left him, he
would kill her, the baby, and himself before he paid child
support. Ms. Barbour asked the [Petitioner] if he made the
statement, and the [Petitioner] walked away without
responding. On the Thursday before the shooting, Ms. Barbour
went to the victim's house, saw a hole in the bathroom
wall, and asked what happened. The victim showed her a
gunshot hole in her mattress. The victim said she did not
shoot the gun but did not answer when Ms. Barbour asked if
the [Petitioner] shot it.

Ricky Iverson, a patient access manager at Skyline Medical
Center, testified that the [Petitioner] called him between
7:00 and 8:00 a.m. on March 17, 2010, and asked whom to
contact about life insurance. He said the [Petitioner] wanted
to come to the hospital and speak to the victim's
co-workers to tell them his side of the story because he
claimed the victim's mother had made inaccurate
statements. Corey Northern, a Metro Human Resources analyst,
testified that the [Petitioner] called him on March 17, 2010,
at about 9:30 a.m. to ask about life insurance for the victim
and that although the [Petitioner] could have applied for
insurance on his wife, he had not.

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) Special Agent
Forensic Scientist Robert Miles, an expert in gunshot
residue, testified that the paper towel found at the crime
scene tested positive for a large amount of gunshot residue,
which meant it was near a gun when the gun was fired or had
come in contact with a recently fired gun. The front of the
[Petitioner's] white shirt tested positive for gunshot
residue on the right and left sides. The [Petitioner's]
jeans tested positive for gunshot residue on the right front
pocket. Agent Miles said that gunshot residue could be from
shooting a gun or from transfer, that a paper towel used to
clean a gun could contain gunshot residue, and that a person
cleaning a weapon could have gunshot residue on his shirt and
pants.

TBI Special Agent Forensic Scientist Laura Hodge, an expert
in gunshot residue analysis, testified that the gunshot
residue test performed on the [Petitioner] was inconclusive.
She said the victim's gunshot residue test results did
not show elements indicative of gunshot residue.

TBI Special Agent Forensic Scientist Terri Arney, an expert
in firearms identification, testified that testing could not
conclusively determine whether the bullet received from the
medical examiner was fired from the Glock handgun found at
the crime scene but that the bullet was the same caliber and
had the same features he expected to find on a bullet fired
from a Glock handgun. He said the cartridge found in the
living room was fired from the Glock handgun. He said the
bullet and shell casing were both from a nine-millimeter. He
said that all the safety features were operating on the Glock
handgun found at the scene, that the gun was designed not to
fire if dropped or struck, and that the trigger had to be
pulled fully to fire, which took six and seven-eighths pounds
of pressure.

TBI Special Agent Charles Hardy, an expert in DNA analysis,
testified that the swabs taken from the wall, door, hall, and
floor indicated blood. The swabs taken from the inside of the
gun barrel did not show blood, and although a limited amount
of human DNA was found inside the barrel, he was unable to
obtain a DNA profile from it. The blood on the wall, floor,
front door, hall, paper towel, and the [Petitioner's]
shirt matched the victim's DNA.

Dr. John Davis, a forensic pathologist and medical examiner,
listed the victim's cause of death as undetermined at the
time of the autopsy because he wanted more information. He
said the manner of death, whether accidental or homicide, was
ultimately a jury question. The victim was twenty-four years
old and had a gunshot wound to the right side of her face.
The bullet went through the victim's right cheek into her
skull and out the back, left side of her head. He said that
if the shooter was taller than the victim, the shooter had to
shoot from below the victim to create the angle of the wound.
He said stippling was found on the victim's face, which
helped determine how far the gun was from the skin when it
was fired. He requested test patterns of stippling from the
gun to determine the distance. He determined the gun was
between six and nine inches from the victim's face when
it was fired and said it was closer to nine inches.

Dr. Davis testified that it was unlikely the victim fired the
gun based on the angle of the wound, the distance between the
gun and her face, and the amount of pressure needed to fire
the gun but that it was possible the gun was held
differently. He said that if the victim held the gun by the
slide as the [Petitioner] suggested, her hands would have had
lacerations, which were not found. Dr. Davis said that the
victim could have moved from the doorway to the sofa after
she was shot because she did not have a brain stem injury but
that the movement may not have been intentional.

Greg Smith, an insurance agent, testified that the victim had
a $23, 000 life insurance policy through her employer, which
would double to $46, 000 if her death was accidental. The
victim applied for the insurance, not the [Petitioner]. The
beneficiary was the [Petitioner], and he submitted an
application to receive the payout in May 2010.

Metro Police Sergeant Pat Postiglione took the blood spatter
evidence from the crime scene to Jerry Findley, an expert in
Statesboro, Georgia. He took most of the victim's
clothes, the [Petitioner's] clothes and shoes, a pair of
gloves, photographs, the 9-1-1 call recording, the
[Petitioner's] interview recording, and the
witnesses' statements. He did not tell Mr. Findley his
theory.

Sergeant Postiglione walked with Christine Rogers from her
office where the victim was seen at 4:30 p.m. on March 16,
2010, to the employee parking lot where the victim was
parked. The walk took two minutes and forty seconds. He drove
from Skyline Medical Center to the [Petitioner's] house
three times, and the drive took approximately 8 minutes. He
said the total time it took the victim to walk to her car and
drive home was ten minutes and forty seconds.

Sergeant Postiglione obtained the computer aided dispatch
(CAD) system history from the [Petitioner's] patrol car.
The CAD history showed that the [Petitioner] went to Megan
Prisco's address fourteen times between February 14 and
March 7, 2010. He said that the [Petitioner]
"self-initiated" eight of the fourteen calls and
that four of the eight calls were out of his patrol zone.

Jerry Findley, an expert in bloodstain pattern analysis and
crime scene reconstruction, testified that the gun had blood
transfer stains and that the paper towel had impact stains
and gunshot residue consistent with its being used to hold
the gun when it was fired. He said the blood stains on the
victim's arm indicated she was holding her arm up when
she was shot. The victim's left hand had impact stains on
the palm meaning her left hand had to be open and exposed to
the source of the blood. He said that if the victim was
holding out the gun, she would have had impact stains on the
underside of her right arm, which she did not have. The
[Petitioner] had impact stains on his nose and around his
mouth, which showed that he was facing the victim
"direct on" at the time of the gunshot. The
[Petitioner] had backspatter on the right side of his shirt,
which was blood moving toward the source of the force that
caused the injury, the gun. He had "swipe stains"
on the left side of his shirt that looked like finger marks.
Impact stains appeared on the [Petitioner's] left shoe,
which showed the shoe was facing the wound as backspatter
returned. The impact stains on the [Petitioner's] face
and shoes indicated he was facing the "source of
entry" at about a forty-five-degree angle. No blood was
found in the other rooms of the house, although the
[Petitioner] said he took the AR-15 to the bedroom after the
shooting.

Mr. Findley saw no evidence that the [Petitioner] performed
CPR and no blood evidence to support the [Petitioner's]
reaching for the AR-15 when the victim was shot. Mr.
Findley's findings did not support any of the
[Petitioner's] three stories that he was in the kitchen,
in the bedroom, or sitting on the couch when the victim was
shot. His findings showed that the victim did not fire the
gun. He believed the victim was shot somewhere near the front
door, grabbed her face, and moved or was moved to the sofa
where she remained until emergency personnel arrived.

The [Petitioner] testified that he and the victim met in high
school and started flirting when they worked together at
Chuck-E-Cheese. He said that in 2004, he graduated from high
school and enlisted in the Marines. He deployed overseas in
November 2005 for four months and returned to Nashville to
visit family in the spring of 2006. When he was in Nashville,
he saw the victim at a mall, and they exchanged numbers. They
began talking and started a long-distance relationship when
he returned to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. They became
engaged on February 14, 2007, and were married in August
2007. The victim did not move to North Carolina with the
[Petitioner] but lived with her mother in Nashville. The
[Petitioner] and the victim eventually rented an apartment in
Nashville where the victim lived alone while the [Petitioner]
remained in North Carolina. The [Petitioner] was honorably
discharged from the military in May 2008 for a medical
disability and was hired by the Metro Police Department in
October or November 2008. He entered the police academy,
which lasted around six months and ended in July 2009. The
[Petitioner] and the victim bought a house in the fall of
2009.

The [Petitioner] testified that he kept "a lot of
firearms" in the house, including personal weapons and
three police-issued service weapons. He had a gun safe in the
master bedroom closet and kept all his weapons secured if he
was not home. He said he kept one gun out and around him and
the victim if they were home. He said that he carried a gun
everywhere, even when he was off duty, and that the victim
knew he always carried a gun. He said ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.